Tag: hunting

Categories
crime and punishment

They Shoot Deer, Don’t They?

Eight dead sea lions — a water mammal belonging to the taxonomical grouping called pinnipeds, but known to most as “big seals” — were found washed ashore with bullet holes in their carcasses.

Sad. Sea lions are interesting if not exactly beautiful mammals.

The sentimentalist in me shudders at any such death. But, as I sit back eating a hamburger, I can’t say I am against killing non-​human animals. Perhaps we should save our shudders for the  wasteful nature of the slaughter: No meat, blubber, or hide was used.Seal of Approval

The news report I read warily mentions how fishermen view sea lions — as competition. The report doesn’t mention the sea lions’ protected status: You can get into big trouble shooting a sea lion in most places.

And yet, from reports I’ve heard (and occasionally read: this is an unpopular topic for journalists to cover), these carnivorous mammals are indeed quite a problem for west coast fisheries. Oft told are tales of removing sea lions from Columbia River dams’ fish ladders, where they gorge themselves, and shipping them off to the ocean — only to have them reappear at the dams lickety-split.

An alternative to such heroic and expensive protection and removal schemes would be to manage sea lion populations with planned hunting seasons. River fish are increasingly scarce, so leaving pinniped populations unmanaged will further upset ecosystem balance.

Besides, with sea lion hunts, we would see less poaching.

After all, hunters shoot deer, don’t they? And deer are a lot prettier than sea lions.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture

Save Herds, Save Hunting

Ideas of local control and popular government are perennially revived on both the right and the left. But we don’t often enough export those ideas, especially to areas of endeavor like wildlife preservation. 

Considering the sorry state of so much wildlife, especially in Africa, you’d think decentralization and citizen control might more often be trotted out.

Terry Anderson and Shawn Regan, writing for the Hoover Institution’s Defining Ideas, argue that devolving hunting rights down to the village level in Africa would almost certainly help preserve wildlife stocks. It’s worked pretty well in Zimbabwe, while Kenya, which prohibited hunting instead of managing it, saw “its population of wild animals [decline] between 60 and 70 percent.”

The usual wildlife policy advocated in the West might as well be called wildlife colonialism. It combines a heavy dose of moralism with a heavy-​handed, top-​down authoritarianism — the last thing we want to encourage in African governments for other matters. And it doesn’t work for preservation. With it, local communities have no stake in wildlife management, so wildlife degrades through poaching and habitat encroachment.

Far better to provide people in Africa — in villages and towns and in the stretches between them — incentives to keep stocks of elephants and lions and apes and monkeys and what-​have-​you healthy.

Hunters kill animals, yes — but, with the right incentives, can help save whole species. As Anderson and Regan put it, “if it pays, it stays.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Trading One Right for Another

Trades are not unheard of in politics, but somehow they rarely exhibit the up-​front honesty and clarity of the trades that make up the bulk of our economic life. When I go to the super-​market, or the record store, or Wal-​Mart, I pretty much know what I’m getting and what I’m giving up.

Not so clear, though, in politics.

Take Arizona’s “Hunting and Fishing Amendment,” Proposition 109 on this November’s ballot. Much has been made of the first element of the ballot’s title, establishing a “constitutional right” to hunt and fish. Outdoorsmen love it.

But a second element gives to the state legislature “Exclusive authority” to regulate hunting and fishing, which may grant regulatory power to various wildlife commissions.

It basically disallows Arizona’s citizens from future influence through the initiative and referendum. That’s what citizens trade away for the first part. Citizens get a “right” to hunt and fish “lawfully,” a right they already have, but give up their current rights to influence what that “lawfully” means, via the ballot.

Prop 109 also declares that hunting and fishing would be the preferred means of controlling wildlife, and it says that “no law shall be enacted” that “unreasonably restricts” hunting and fishing, etc. 

Of course, constitutions can say “no law” all they want. History shows legislatures don’t abide by that prohibition. Neither do courts.

Just read the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and consider … and cringe.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.